ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 17,
1993
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
)
ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 92—164
(Enforcement)
)
BER.NIECE KERSHAW and DARWIN
)
DALE KERSHAW d/b/a KERSHAW
)
MOBILE HOME PARK,
)
)
Respondents.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by G.
T. Girard):
On June 9,
1993,
the People filed a motion, pursuant to 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 101.241(c),
for leave to file
a reply to
Respondent’s Memorandum in Opposition to Complainant’s Motion.
The Kershaws filed a response in opposition on June 16,
1993.
The People state that:
If the Board denies complainant’s Motion to
Disqualify without having allowed complainant
an opportunity to present its entire argument
with respect to the issue of Mr. Kuntz’s
qualification to represent the respondents,
the interests of the parties and the public
and the integrity of the Board’s proceedings
may be compromised
in the manner more fully
described in the complainant’s Motion to
Disqualify.
Any minimal delay which would
result from complainant’s being allowed to
file a written reply would be substantially
outweighed by the prejudice which could
result if the complainant is not allowed to
file a reply.
In response, the Kershaws contend that:
Complainant’s Motion fails to demonstrate
material prejudice.
Rather, the motion
asserts that complainant has not presented
its “entire argument,” Notion at par.
4.
Complainant’s failure to present the entire
argument in its motion should not allow it to
circumvent the Board’s rules.
These rules
were intended to avoid the kind of piecemeal
181
2
briefing complainant now seeks,
and to
provide for the speedy determination of Board
proceedings.
Complainant, having
substantially delayed reaching the merits of
this proceeding by filing its original motion
to disqualify, will obtain additional delay
if the instant motion is granted.
Indeed,
it
will be respondents who would be materially
prejudiced by an inability to respond to any
new arguments raised by complainant,
and,
having had their resources significantly
diverted from the merits of the case by
filing of the Motion to Disqualify, will be
forced to shoulder a further burden.
As
suggested in Respondent’s Memorandum in
Opposition, to the extent the Board desires a
further airing of issues which transcend the
instant case,
it may wish to initiate inquiry
hearings on the matter.
The People’s motion is granted.
The motion to disqualify
poses a matter of first impression.
The Board believes that this
is a circumstance where allowing a reply will aid the Board in
its determination of this issue,
and is the type of situation
envisioned by the Board when the “leave to reply” rule was
adopted.
However, the Board does not intend to allow “piecemeal”
briefing as the Kershaws fear.
The reply must be limited to
addressing points raised by the Kershaws in their response; no
new points may be raised.
The People’s reply must be received by
the Board on or before June 25,
1993.
This will allow the Board
to consider the substance of the motion to disqualify at its next
scheduled meeting on July
1,
1993.
Any minimal delay in reaching
the outcome of the motion to reconsider the default order
is
outweighed by the benefits to the Board’s deliberative processes.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy N.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certi
that the above order was adopted on the
/~~day of
__________________,
1993,
by a vote of
7-~O.
~
A.
,~
Dorothy N.
unn, Clerk
Illinois
liution Control Board
U
4
u
u
h